The Hong Kong District Court on Thursday found Best Pencil (Hong Kong Limited), the parent company of Stand News, along with former chief editor Chung Pui-kuen and former acting chief editor Patrick Lam, guilty of “conspiracy to publish and/or reproduce seditious publications” under the now-repealed section 10(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance. The sentencing hearing is scheduled for September 26.

The prosecution’s case centered on 17 articles in four categories: (i) profile articles and blog posts relating to the pro-democracy primary elections, (ii) articles that contain “wanton vilification” against the enforcement and judicial procedures of the Hong Kong National Security Law, (iii) articles written by self-exiled activists advocating for the sanctioning of Chinese and Hong Kong government and (iv) two profile articles about two Chinese University of Hong Kong alumni recalling the turmoil on campus in 2019 and the “Distinguished Person for Advancing Democracy in China Award” laureate Chow Hang-tung‘s speech.

Judge Kwok Wai-kin held that speeches are seditious if they cause potentially detrimental consequences to national security. The prosecution does not need to prove that the impugned speeches constituted real risks to national security, relying on an appellate authority HKSAR v. Tam Tak Chi.

Considering the extremely heated political climate and the widespread discontent with the Chinese or the Hong Kong government at the time of publication, Kwok found 11 articles had seditious intentions that “bring into hatred against the Central authorities or the SAR government.”

Furthermore, Kwok also ruled that the prosecution could establish the defendant’s mens rea by proving that the defendant, aware of the seditious intent within a publication, disregarded the consequence of publishing it. This eases the prosecution’s burden, diverging from Kwok’s earlier ruling in HKSAR v Lai Man-ling, where it was required that the defendant also possessed seditious intent to be convicted of sedition. Kwok justified this relaxation as necessary for effectively safeguard national security and protecting fundamental rights.

Kwok also held that operational proportionality has no application in Hong Kong as long as the offense is constitutional, following the Court of Final Appeal’s ruling in HKSAR v Ng Ngoi Yee Margaret.

The trial began in October 2022, with an initial ruling expected in October 2023. However, Kwok postponed the ruling twice, awaiting the appellate decision in Tam Tak Chi, which addressed the legal controversy of whether a defendant can be convicted without the intention to incite violence. Although the Court of Appeal found that an intention to incite violence is unnecessary to prove sedition, the Court of Final Appeal granted leave for the applicant to appeal against the court’s ruling.

Following the judgment, both Hong Kong Journalist Association and Amnesty International raised concerns about press freedoms in Hong Kong. Amnesty International’s China Director Sarah Brooks said:

The court’s judgment that 11 articles on the Stand News website were “seditious” will invariably force journalists working in Hong Kong to think twice about what they write and further entrench a climate of fear in the city, fuelled by a succession of repressive national security laws.

Conversely, a government spokesman emphasized that the media must observe their “special duties and responsibilities” under Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which includes the duty to protect national security, public order, public health and morals. The government also underscored that the court’s decision was well supported by Strasbourg jurisprudence, which maintains that press freedom must be grounded in journalists’ duties to act in good faith and provide accurate information.

It is worth noting that sedition offenses under the Crimes Ordinance have been repealed, following the enactment of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance this year. Part 3 of the Ordinance provides for a more detailed definition of seditious intention and increases the maximum imprisonment from 2 years to 10 years. Article 25 also particularly removes the requirement to prove the intention to incite public disorder or violence.